The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality.“this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society. The third is that the“shadow“is necessary for moral behaviour which coincides with his belief that for good to exist there must be evil.
Throughout this essay I will be discussing how we should handle moral disagreements. Specifically I will focus on the ethical theory of Utilitarianism, it benefits but also its disadvantages which shows it is a theory which should not be used to handle moral disagreements. Utilitarianism is a type of relativist consequentialist ethic. Consequentialist ethical systems focus on the outcome of an action, rather than the agent or the action itself. Utilitarianism is a relativistic ethic because each time the outcomes of each ethical questions will be different.
INTRODUCTION The ethical decision is challenging and probably blurry for decision-makers. Mostly, it creates a dilemma where fierce antagonism arises from listening to the voice of conscience and the voices of other opinions surrounding. Profoundly, the winner is determined by how willing the person is to pursue the goodness and freely choose whether to pay attention to the inner voice or mute it. Moral philosophers are contributing in providing an instrument to enable us to heed to the verdict of conscience, by which will be the compass through the decision stages. Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not need a philosopher to show us which action is right, we already know that based on what he calls it the common human reason.
As mentioned above the importance of reason to Hume is marginal and accessory in his moral theory. The fundamental role goes on the other hand for passions. In fact because we have these passions we need to satisfy them so we invert to institutions which are artifacts that help us provide a regular and secure supply of impressions for our desires. Example, If someone is attached to a belonging, the passion that correspond to this attachment is called avidity, and the institution securing this belonging is called justice. It is the passion that is then at the origin of an institution and all correlative values.
In part three, I will outline my objection to the theory of the ethics of virtues and its flaws as result of moral luck. Finally, I will bring my argument to a close with a strong and coherent conclusion that virtue ethics is inherently flawed, and, as an alternative,
“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.
Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework. One of Mill 's replies to oppositions about utilitarianism is that the given analysis is not distinctive to utilitarianism, that any ethical theory would have such limitations. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this tactic? Does it really satisfy Mill 's stated objective, to dispel misconceptions about his theory? Might such a reply undermine all ethical
Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. Immanuel Kant designed ‘The Categorical Imperative’ theory which was associated with the fact that it was commanding us to practice our morals and desires in a specific way which was exercised through two rules. Kamm (2000) claims that these components were to ‘(1) treat persons as ends in themselves and (2) do not treat them as mere means’. Kamm is basically suggesting that we seek happiness of others, as that is morally right, however fulfill capacities of one’s own intellect. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical.
Virtue ethics is more about ‘being’ whereas moral ethics is more about ‘doing’ (Rondall, 2014). In order to act and behave in a morally correct way, one has to have a character and virtues that will support it. Being a virtuous person will enable you to act according to moral principle; however you cannot act according to moral principle and do your duty if you do not have the virtues that allow for this. Kant suggests that good will is achieved through intent, contributing to the argument that one cannot act morally if their intentions have ulterior motives (Rondall, 2014). The motivation behind duty is having the respect for moral law, thus inferring that one has to have respect which is gained through practice, learnt by habituation and taught from example (Johnson & Cureton, 2016).
Political authority refers to the power of the state or government to create laws that are expected to be abided by, and in turn be able to prosecute those who disobey them. These laws are moral obligations meant to ensure the good functioning of societies, and are presumably essential to minimise conflicts. In political philosophy, we are concerned with the legitimacy of political authority due to its apparent conflict with individual liberties and moral autonomy as brought up by Wolff. (quote Wolff- it is incompatible for a subject to comply with the commands of an authority merely because it is the command of the authority and for the subject to be acting morally autonomously) This essay seeks to explicate on Locke’s justification of political
In light of this, Rawls points to the shortcomings and common criticisms of the Utilitarian model for justifying punishment. One fundamental criticism, and moral dilemma, is that it sanctions an innocent person being punished for the benefit of society. On the other hand, however, Utilitarianism agrees that punishment is to be put into effect only in the event of the violation of a law. Utilitarianism seeks to limit the use of punishment by declaring it justifiable only if it can be shown to foster effectively the good of society. Consequently, the Utilitarian principle is accused of justifying too much.